5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lopatnic.
6.  She is the mother of Ion Anuşca, who was born in 1985 and who died on 5 October 2004, during his military service.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  The applicant's son commenced his mandatory military service in November 2003, assigned to the Guard Regiment within the Basic Air Forces, where he performed farm work. The following August he was transferred to other duties. According to the Government, this was because of certain behavioural problems, including intoxication and aggressiveness.
9.  On 3 October 2004 the applicant's son was absent from his unit for two-three hours without permission. Two days later, he was ordered to provide a written explanation for this absence. He explained orally that he had visited an acquaintance in the nearby village, to whom he had entrusted a number of his personal objects for safe-keeping. One of his superiors who was acquainted with both the applicant and her son spoke sharply to him. At approximately 8.10 p.m., following the evening meal, the applicant's son asked another soldier for a pen. A few minutes later he returned the pen along with a piece of paper and a bullet. He told the soldier not to read what was written on the paper and left the room. The soldier nevertheless read the paper, which contained a few words including a farewell addressed to a person by the name of Olesea. He informed his commander of the situation, who immediately gave the order to fall in. When the applicant's son failed to respond, the other soldiers were sent to search for him. He was found some minutes later lying dead under a tree behind the barracks with a broken cord around his neck, the other end of which was tied to a branch overhead.
10.  The commander-in-chief of the regiment contacted the Bălţi military prosecutor's office, which sent a prosecutor, V.M., to the scene to investigate. The investigation commenced shortly before midnight. A number of details were verified and recorded in the official report: presence of a military cap near the body; the length of each piece of cord; the diameter of the branch to which it was tied. The investigator took possession of the piece of paper and the bullet referred to above.
11.  An external examination of the body was made later that night by a forensic doctor, who commenced his examination at 1.56 a.m. He noted that the only sign of injury on the body was to the neck. As pointed out by the applicant, the temperature of the body was not recorded, making it impossible to establish the exact time of death.
12.  According to the Government, the investigator interviewed 15 soldiers and commanders about Ion Anuşca's time in the regiment and the circumstances of his death. Nothing that was said gave grounds to suspect foul play. The person named on the piece of paper was also interviewed, as was the applicant herself. She told the investigation that her son had not had any difficulties in entering into military service, nor had he ever complained to her about military life. He had even been contemplating a career in the military, and had plans to rent a house close to the base.
13.  The investigation also included a post-mortem psychiatric assessment of the deceased performed by a panel of three psychiatrists. In their first report, dated 19 November 2004, they stated that on the basis of the elements before them it was not possible to state whether Ion Anuşca had been influenced by another person to commit suicide. In their second report, dated 17 December 2004, and following an interview with “Olesea”, they concluded that there was nothing about Ion Anuşca's behaviour during his military service or shortly before his death that suggested he suffered from psychological problems. Nor did it appear that any person had induced him to commit suicide.
14.  The investigator also requested a forensic examination of the body, which took place on 7 December 2004. This confirmed that death had been due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. It also established the presence of alcohol at the time of death (1.1 mg).
15.  On 23 December 2004, the military prosecutor issued an ordinance closing the investigation, finding that the death had been caused by suicide, and that no crime had been committed.
16.  On 1 April 2005, the Prosecutor General's deputy annulled this ordinance on the ground that the death of Ion Anuşca had not been sufficiently investigated. He specified several steps to be taken, including a handwriting analysis and further interviews with the soldiers and officers of the regiment with a view to establishing the reasons for the suicide, and to obtaining more information on the deceased's behaviour, attitude and personal situation.
17.  The handwriting analysis was obtained on 29 April 2005. During that same month, the investigator interviewed more of the colleagues of Ion Anuşca. These witnesses referred to relational difficulties within the Anuşca family and tension in the home. They recalled that Ion Anuşca's behaviour had changed radically when he returned to the barracks from a visit to his home in the summer of 2004, becoming shy, drinking heavily and not being able to recall his actions later on. According to these witnesses, he behaved at times in a violent manner towards other soldiers, and inflicted physical harm on himself as well by beating his head against walls. It was for this reason that he had been transferred to a new unit in August 2004. These interviews also provided the name of the person that Ion Anuşca used go to see in the nearby village, P.S.. The military prosecutor closed the investigation for the second time on 3 May 2005, again concluding that no crime had been committed.
18.  In November 2006 the applicant applied to the Balţi municipal court to annul the closure of the investigation. She complained that she had not received a copy of the military prosecutor's decision, nor had she seen the investigation file. She was therefore unaware whether an autopsy had been performed. Her request that certain persons be interviewed had been rejected by the military prosecutor. Her lawyer requested exhumation of the body in order to establish whether any injuries had been inflicted before death.
19.  On 20 November 2006 the court ruled that the applicant's rights under Articles 77, 78 and 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been seriously violated. These included the right to submit documents and evidence for inclusion in the investigation file, the right to challenge the decisions of the investigator, the right to make requests, and the right to become acquainted with the contents of the file. Because these rights had not been respected, the applicant still did not know the cause of her son's death. The court also noted that while the forensic examination referred to the taking of photographs of the body, there were no photos in the file, although these might have led to the discovery of new facts. However, since the applicant had not observed the procedure set out at Article 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, her complaints had to be rejected.
20.  The applicant sought the assistance of a Member of Parliament, who made representations to the Prosecutor General. On 31 May 2007 the Prosecutor General's deputy annulled the military prosecutor's ordinance of 3 May 2005. He ruled that the applicant had to be recognised as the injured party, thereby granting her the rights set out in Article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He directed that information be obtained from the town hall of the applicant's village concerning her son's character, his relations with his family and about the applicant herself. He further indicated that the reasons for Ion Anuşca's absences from the military base and whereabouts at such times should be established.
21.  The military prosecutor closed the investigation for the third time on 28 August 2007. The applicant was informed of this by letter of 20 September 2007, to which was appended a copy of the decision.
22.  That decision was cancelled by the Prosecutor General's deputy on 16 January 2008, who noted that neither the photographs taken during the forensic examination of the body nor the camera film had been added to the investigation file. Nor had any more information been retrieved about Ion Anuşca's absences. He called for P.S. to be interviewed to see whether there was any link between the inhabitants of the village and Ion Anuşca's death.
23.  The following day, 17 January 2008, the Prosecutor General's office wrote a letter to the military prosecutor of Balţi strongly criticising the manner in which the case had been handled. The investigation had been incomplete and there had been unjustified delay. Steps that had been ordered had not been taken, which was a failure to fulfil official duties and showed a lack of proper control on the part of the military prosecutor. He was ordered to provide a written explanation for the situation, take sufficient measures of redress and avoid such faults in future.
24.  The investigation was closed for the fourth and last time on 21 May 2008, it having been concluded that no criminal offence had been committed. The applicant was informed of this by a latter dated 27 May 2008, which enclosed a copy of the military prosecutor's decision.